The great fraud of UlsterHealy, T. M. (Timothy Michael)
History
The great fraud of Ulster
Healy, T. M. (Timothy Michael)
Ireland -- History -- 17th century; Ulster (Northern Ireland and Ireland) -- History
In June, 1607, the Court re-assembled in Dublin Castle, and Davies
at once raised objections to O’Neill’s grant. He argued that,
notwithstanding the treaty of Mellifont, “Tyrone” did not include
“O’Cahan’s Country”: and, therefore, that the Earl’s seizures from
his vassal were unlawful. As no map was attached to the Patent
(which embraced several counties) it was easy to wrangle over
boundaries. The Deputy and his confederates patiently listened to the
Attorney-General. They thought his contention ingenious; although
it was marred by the blot that its logic required a decision in
O’Cahan’s favour. This would no more have suited than a victory for
O’Neill. Sir Donal had served his turn. Davies, therefore, also
argued that the Earl’s Patent was altogether bad. True, he was the
lawful heir to Tyrone under a prior Patent to his grandfather, Con,
from Henry VIII.; but that did not count, for had he not risen in
rebellion against Elizabeth? His subsequent pardon by King James
without attainder was not to be made too much of; and Davies rattled
on by the hour berating the fallen chief. Chichester gloated over
his victim’s plight; chid him betimes when he exploded against his
adversary; and in the end gave judgment against both of them. This
feat was unexpected by Sir Donal, but the decree was ingenious. It
ran:—“Upon examination of the whole matter, it seemed to them that
the right to that country still remaineth in his Majesty.” In other
words, the Treaty of Mellifont was broken, and O’Neill’s Patent
was declared void. Punic faith was honour bright with Sir Arthur
Chichester.
A trap was then laid for the Earl by a proviso that, until his
Majesty’s pleasure should be signified, O’Cahan was to have
two-thirds of the lands, and the Earl one-third, but that meanwhile
O’Neill was to repair to London before the following November,
to await the Sovereign’s pleasure. As to the Bann, the decree was
marvellously mute. Davies wrote to prepare Cecil for his victim’s
visit, and make up the King’s conscience. His falsehoods, dated 1st
July, 1607, were plenary:—“Plainly neither of them hath any title.
It is now, and ever hath been, vested in the actual possession of
the Crown since the 11th Elizabeth. Howbeit, the land lying in those
remote parts, the ignorance and negligence of officers was such that
it was never brought into charge.” All this, four years after the
Patent of 1603, and the pardon from James I. which alone would have
revived his rights (as grandson of Con O’Neill) under the Patent of
Henry VIII.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account